Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-2004 PC Minutes IJlanning COl1l1nissionMinutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 23, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, King, and Machtmes; Andy Byde, Acting Planning Manager; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Jennings ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - November 9, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None 6.1 Public Comments - at this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no action or discussion shall take place on any item, which is not on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00 AM on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. 6.2 Informational Presentation by Alameda County Waste Authority on Green Building Guidelines for Multifamily Construction. Katen Kho, Program Manager, Alameda County Waste Management Authority gave a brief overview of the item presented to the Planning Commission. She explained the new resource that was developed for their member agencies including Alameda County and the City of Dublin. She handed out the multi family green building guidelines. Cm. Fasulkey asked who are the members. Ms. Kho stated they are a joint powers authority. There are 17 members which include all of the cities in Alameda County, the County itself as well as two sanitary districts. She stated that Green Building are buildings that are mainstream that meet the functions that they are designed for. They are durable and maintainable, aesthetically pleasing, cost effective, healthy & productive, which minimizes natural resource consumption and environmental impacts. The guidelines were developed by working with 3 pilot development projects. They are working with Carmen Avenue project in Livermore, Breakers at Bayport Apartments in Alameda, and the Dublin 182 '}{(YI)em6er 23, 2004 Senior Housing Development. They had developed list of potential measure and technical review of measures. They feel the guidelines have gone through a serious level of review. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the Dublin Senior Housing is the building being built at the old library site. Ms. Kho stated the senior housing participated in the project and they worked with them up until a certain point of the design development process of the project. They have worked with Eden Housing since then for the Dublin Senior Housing project. She explained the three pilot projects gave them a range of housing projects. She showed the commission the full set of guidelines and stated there were copies at the counter. The objectives help market rate and affordable projects make quick and efficient decisions about appropriate green measures, teach new construction methods, products, assist in integrating green building into the design process, anticipate scheduling needs, code considerations and design details, and identify strategies to manage costs. She discussed the design assistance provided for affordable housing. They offer assistance at various levels of the project. They also offer training on using the multifamily green building guidelines, design assistance and review at various levels of project completion, assistance with selection, specification and procurement of green building materials. There are eligibility requirements; projects must be located in Alameda County, at least 10% of the units must be at 80% of area median income. She concluded her presentation and stated she was available for questions. Cm. King asked if developers are receptive and comply with the guidelines. Ms. Kho stated they have spoken to numerous affordable housing developers and they are supportive of the guidelines because they own and operate their projects. They see what the benefits are. For market rate developers there is a different rationale and may see it as a market advantage. Cm. Nassar asked the comparative costs of standard buildings and green building. Ms. Kho stated materials may be more expensive but generally when a developer understands how it works and incorporates it into their ongoing standard practice; it does not have an added premium. Cm. Nassar asked comparative costs for items such as carpet, etc. Ms. Kho stated for things like carpet and paint there is a Green Building preferred alternative that costs the same as conventional items. Linoleum will cost more, but it lasts three times longer than vinyl. Cm. Nassar asked why developers aren't jumping on this. Ms. Kho stated it is starting to become more popular especially in commercial project. The obstacle is usually lack of education. Cm. Fasulkey asked Ms. Kho what is the scope of the design work and how in depth will she work with a developer. iPfallUill!J CommÙsÙm 183 ':'fovem6er 23, 2004 Ms. Kho stated they have an initial meeting with the project team and they try to assess how far they want to go in terms of incorporating Green Building features. The consultants would review the plans and come back with a set of recommendations that would work for the project. If there comes a need for more in depth analysis that can be done by the consultants as well. Cm. Fasulkey asked what are the City's requirements to send projects towards Green Building. Mr. Byde stated the City is evaluating of ordinances which codify some of the Green Building requirements for certain types of structures. The Green Building guidelines are available at the public counter and Staff does encourage it early on. Cm. Nassar asked what would be the incentive for the City to encourage Green Building. Mr. Byde stated there is the recycling ordinance for projects within a certain valuation that are required to recycle a certain amount of the construction debris. The City looks at discretionary projects, such as General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and has required, as a condition of approval some type of Green Building measures, and at other times it is encouraged to be incorporated. Cm. King asked Ms. Kho if she gives the same presentation to other Planning Commissions. Ms. Kho responded yes. Cm. King asked if any other cities have adopted anything formal in terms of a policy that Dublin Staff could look at. Ms. Kho stated that City of Emeryville at the permit process require that a worksheet that is filled out to show which multi family measures are being included in the project. That is something Dublin could consider. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 P A 03-028 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Parking Regulations and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit relating to the on-site parking of Recreational Vehicles. Cm. Pasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Byde advised the Planning Commission of the background of the project and stated a recreational vehicle, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, includes motor homes, travel trailers, utility trailers, boats on trailers, horse trailers, campers where the living area overhangs the cab and camping trailers, or tent trailers, with or without motive power. The Dublin Zoning Ordinance regulates the location of required parking spaces on a residential lot and allows recreational vehicles to be parked in the following areas: (1) the driveway (gray area shown on Attachment 1); (2) the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (yellow area shown on Attachment 1); and (3) the side yard, and the rear yard. A maximum of one recreational vehicle may be parked/ stored in the driveway or the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (the gray or yellow area shown on Attachment 1), provided that: (1) the vehicle does not encroach within one foot of the public right-of-way; (2) does not cross from the driveway and the nearest side lot line into the side yard area (the area shown as blue on Attachment 1); (3) is parked on a paved, all-weather surface; (4) is owned and registered to the occupants of the premises upon which it is parked/ stored; and (5) is not (ommÚsion 184 ~Vovem6er 23,2004 used for living or sleeping purposes. A maximum of two recreational vehicles are allowed to be parked in the required side or rear yards (the blue area shown on Attachment 1) if screened by a 6-foot high fence. At the October 15, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report regarding the off-street parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas. In January of 2003, Staff returned to the City Council with a general report on recreational vehicles. The report discussed the history of regulating recreational vehicles within Dublin; the current regulations for off-street parking as they relate to recreational vehicles; and an inventory of existing recreational vehicles parked in off-street locations. At the conclusion of the January meeting, the City Council directed Staff to return with examples of heights and lengths of recreational vehicles and some potential size limitations for evaluation. On June 17, 2003, Staff returned to the City Council with examples of heights and lengths of recreational vehicles with potential size limitations for evaluation. At the conclusion of the June meeting, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate modifying the current regulations for recreational vehicle parking to allow for more flexibility in parking a recreational vehicle on a single family lot and to evaluate the resulting impacts from modifying the regulations. Specifically, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate modifying the requirement that recreational vehicles cannot cross from the nearest side lot line area into the side yard area (from the yellow into the blue area as shown on Attachment). Currently the recreational vehicle regulations state that a 6-foot high fence must screen any vehicles parked within the side yard. As part of evaluating the contemplated change to the recreational vehicle parking regulations, the City Council requested the Planning Commission provide input on the contemplated changes and any other modifications it felt were appropriate. Staff returned to the City Council on November 4,2003, with the requested information and the Planning Commission recommendation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance amendment which modifies the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations Section for recreational vehicles as follows: (1) modify the "blue/yellow" line as shown on Attachment 1 to extend a minimum of 26 feet from the edge of the front property line; and (2) allow deviations to the permitted locations for off-street parking of recreational vehicle, through a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the City Council directed Staff to develop a Conditional Use Permit process which also included design criteria and findings. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), approving a Conditional Use Permit requires the following findings to be found in the affirmative: A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity. B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. D. There are adequate provision for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed. Commission 185 ':'f(Y()em6er 23. 2004 F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. G. It is consistent wit the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. In addition to the above findings, Staff recommends additional findings to be added to the required findings within the Conditional Use Permit section (Chapter 8.100) to approve a deviation to the parking regulations of a recreational vehicle. Specifically, Staff recommends the following findings be made in the affirmative in order to approve a modification to permitted parking areas of Recreational Vehicles: · The rear yard will be screened from views from the public right-of-way; · No adverse impacts to adjacent properties enjoyment of light and air will result from the parked Recreation Vehicle; · No adverse impacts to vehicular visibility to adjacent properties and the ability for vehicles to back out on to the road way safely, will be maintained; and · No other suitable locations are available on the subject property. In addition to these changes, Staff is also recommending that the Community Development Director to grant alternate parking locations within the green area as shown on Attachment 1. As part of this amendment, Staff recommends that this section be changed to eliminate the Director's authority and allow alternate parking locations to be authorized by the Conditional Use Permit process for the purpose of consistency. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council Amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding Off-Street Parking of Recreation Vehicle Regulations. Cm. Nassar asked where would a resident park their RV if the "yellow" area was not available. Mr. Byde responded they could park in the side yard if appropriate. Cm. Nassar asked the percentage of residents with RV's in Dublin. Mr. Byde stated the City has not done that type of research. Cm. Fasulkey read for the record the letter received from Heather and Milton Torres: Thank you for taking the time today to explain the proposed change in the cih/s zoning ordinance. [fyou could pass on our comments we would appreciate it. We live in one of the older areas of Dublin. In our neighborhood, many homeowners like ourselves have chosen to buy an older home with a yard and fix it up instead of buying a town home without a yard. Almost evenj home tJwt has sold on our street in the 4 years we have lived here has been fixed up and brought positive changes to the looks of our neighborhood. However, wIlEn you drive through our neighborhood tllEre are a number of R v's parked in front of houses and marlY of them do not look venj nice. We were dismayed to llEar that tilE cihj council is considering making it easier to park an R V in front of a house. We feel that if tIlE current standards are relaxed cksirable potential home buyers may choose to live in a neighboring cihj where the standards are higher. If this happens properhj values will be effected and will not rise and may even go down since RV's are an eyesore. We feel this would negate many of the positive clwnges in Dublin which may account for the recent increase in properhj value. It seems as though the cihj is tnjing to improve its reputation and we see a lot of positive changed occurring in Dublin. Since we have two young children, we are especially pleased with tIlE new or updated parks and the 186 ~'{(Y()em6er 23,. 2004 new libran}. However, we strongly feel that allowing more lenient standards for the parking of R v's is a step in the wrong direction when neighboring cities (Oanville) have just moved in the opposite direction by making their regulations stricter. In Danville, R V's need to be hidden from sight. vVe do not understand why more homeowners do not choose to store their R Vat a different location and only park it in front of their house for a limited time. Our concern is that if the current regulation is relaxed more people will choose to park an R V in their driveway or side yard and bring down properh} values. Anyway, please pass our comments onto the cih} council. Thank you, Heather and Milton Torres Kathy Carlson, 8601 Edenberry Place said that there would be a lot more people here if it was not the Tuesday before thanksgiving. She stated that she thought this was a settled deal until they got the notice for this meeting. She asked if there was more length in the "yellow" section could they park a larger vehicle. Cm. Fasulkey stated that number 25 feet is a general concept. If there is sufficient width in the side yard and the homeowner is willing to move the fence back to accommodate a larger motor home the City will allow it. Mr. Byde stated that this is geared towards a home with a minimum of a 20 foot front yard setback. If you had a home with a 30 foot front yard setback, you could park a 29 foot RV. Ms. Carlson stated a lot of people were worried that 25 feet was going to be the maximum length but if the home has a 35 foot front yard setback, a 30 foot motor home would be okay. Mr. Byde stated that is correct. Ms. Carlson asked if this was going to City Council. Mr. Byde stated yes. He advised the residents to leave their names and addresses so they could receive a public hearing notice for the City Council meeting. Cm. Fasulkey stated at some point the City needs to think about residents like the Torres who are opposed to relaxing the current RV Ordinance. Ms. Carlson suggested the City should add the anti-ugly ordinance to motor homes as well. Cm. Pasulkey asked Staff what is the name of the ordinance. Mr. Byde stated the City has a property maintenance ordinance. Cm. Nassar asked Ms. Carlson how far she would be willing to park her RV if there were storage lots available. Ms. Carlson stated in Dublin or Pleasanton. Alene Lewand, 7369 Glenoaks Way echoed what Kathy Carlson said. She said she has spent over $3000 in concrete to comply and park her motor home, which the City approved. If it could be moved back farther, that would be okay. rpfaUUÙI!J CommÙsÙm 187 :N(yvem6er 23,2004 Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes stated he is stuck on the" suitable" location idea. He asked what is the City's philosophy regarding recreational vehicles parking. He stated that if we use ambiguous standards like "suitable" the City needs to give some kind of guidance to the hearing officer whether the preference is to have RVs hidden from view when possible or we generally are OK with having RVs in sight.. Mr. Byde said the way it is currently structured is it goes to the Zoning Administrator for review. If appealed it would come before the Planning Commission. Cm. Machtmes asked what is considered a suitable area. Does the City have a preference to shield them. Mr. Byde said currently this represents the guidance. There is no policy guidance regarding whether RV's should or should not be parked on site. The findings are structured and based on common sense and what are the impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The findings for a use permit are always geared towards what will be the impacts to the adjacent neighbors. Cm. King asked if 25 feet is the limit for the length of the vehicle. Mr. Byde said if the setback is 20 feet then 25 feet is the limit for the length of the vehicle. Cm. King asked what was the necessity for the change. Mr. Byde stated that the way many lots are configured, there is a 20 foot setback. Many RV's are longer than 19 feet in length and it will accommodate what is already there. Cm. Nassar asked why the City doesn't require that the RV be parked in the "blue" zone behind a fence. Mr. Byde stated that was the original Ordinance requircments but was never enforced. The Zoning Ordinance articulates what the community values are. Traditionally this City has allowed a more laissez-faire approach with the parking of RV's. Cm. Pasulkey gave an overview of the facts to the Planning Commission. Cm. Nassar made a motion that the current regulations be enforced and for RV's to be only allowed to park in the "blue" section and not the yellow. The motion failed for lack of 2nd. Cm. Machtmes stated he would prefer that RV's be parked in the "blue" area. He does not have an issue with extending the imaginary line allowing bigger motor homes to be parked in front when they can't be parked on the side. He does have an issue with it being parked in the front when it could be parked in the side. The Planning Commission discussed in great detail the issues related to parking recreational vehicles on the property and the definition of the word" suitable," contained within the recommended Conditional Use Permit findings language. Several members of the Commission did not want it interpreted to mean that a location in the "blue" area that was big enough to hold an RV, but that the homeowner did not want to use for that purpose for some reason, was not "suitable", therefore allowing the homeowner to park the RV in front of the house. The word" suitable" was deleted and replaced with" dimensionally appropriate." œfa Iming Commíuío/l 188 W(YI)em6er 23, 2004 On motion by Cm. Machtmes, seconded by Cm. King, with Cm. Jennings absent and Cm. Nassar abstaining, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 69 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF P A 03-028 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND, CHAPTER 8.100, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: ~\-....._- -- Plannîng Manager œfannÚlf} Commission lJ{t¥Jufar .'Meeting 189 W0'fJetn6er 23, 2004